M PRA
Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Impacts of Competitive Position on
Export Propensity and Intensity: An
Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms
in China
Hung-gay Fung and Gerald Yong Gao and Jiangyong Lu and
Haim Mano
July 2007
Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5674/
MPRA Paper No. 5674, posted 9. November 2007 09:45 UTC
Impacts of Competitive Position on Export Propensity and Intensity:
An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms in China
Hung-gay Fung
Gerald Yong Gao
Jiangyong Lu
Haim Mano
July, 2007
The order of authorship is alphabetic. Hung-gay Fung is Dr. Y.S. Tsiang Professor in Chinese
Studies, Gerald Yong Gao is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business
Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis; Jiangyong Lu is Assistant Professor at School
of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University; Haim Mano is Associate Professor of
Marketing and Area Coordinator, College of Business Administration, University of Missouri-St.
Louis. The second author gratefully acknowledges the support from Center for International
Studies, University of Missouri-St. Louis.
Impacts of Competitive Position on Export Propensity and Intensity:
An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms in China
Abstract
We examine the impacts of competitive industry position on firms’ export propensity and
intensity in China. Drawing on the resource-based view and the structure-conduct-performance
paradigm of firm behavior, we investigate whether firms with competitive industry position
through cost leadership or differentiation strategy have different export behaviors. We use a
longitudinal data of 213,662 manufacturing firms in China from 1998 to 2005 to show that firms
that have developed competitive advantages in the domestic market are more likely to export and
have higher levels of export intensity. Indigenous and foreign manufacturing firms exhibit
different patterns of export behaviors. Foreign firms with differentiation advantages focus on
local market expansion instead of seeking opportunity in export markets.
2
Impacts of Competitive Position on Export Propensity and Intensity:
An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms in China
1. Introduction
In this study, we aim to examine the impacts of competitive industry position on firms’
export behaviors in China and whether there are significant differences between indigenous and
foreign manufacturing firms. Exporting to a foreign market represents a crucial strategic choice
for firms and it is usually the first step to start the internationalization process according to the
stages model of internationalization (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977, 1990; Morgan, Kaleka, and
Katsikeas, 2004). The globalization and the rapid growth of international trade have further
made it imperative for firms to penetrate into foreign markets and seek expansion opportunities.
There have been numerous studies on firms’ export behavior in the last several decades.
Researchers have investigated on the effects of sets of macro- and micro-level variables on
export performance (e.g., Cavusgil and Zou, 1994; Holzmuller and Stottinger, 1996; Ito, 1997).
Competitive advantage is a key factor in explaining firms’ export behavior because
competitive pressure in the home market can keep firms actively pursuing innovation activities,
which eventually produces a competitive industry in world trade (Porter, 1985, 1990; Sakakibara
and Porter, 2001). If firms’ domestic competitive strength enables them to be engaged in
exporting, the strength can be leveraged in international markets (Salomon and Shaver, 2005).
In addition, Porter (1985) suggests that a firm can create a competitive advantage through a cost
leadership or a differentiation strategy. Cost leadership emphasizes cost reduction through cost
control and minimization. Differentiation on the other hand emphasizes differentiating firms
from their rivals through sales, marketing, and innovation strategies. Therefore, we expect that
3
firms’ competitive advantages have significant impacts on export behavior. There exist some
studies investigating the effects of firm capabilities/competencies (Holzmuller and Stottinger,
1996; Ito and Pucik, 1993; Naidu and Prasad, 1994). However, most of them were based on
survey data and cross-sectional in nature, leaving a reach gap in regard of the need to test the
relationship longitudinally to avoid previous methodological shortcomings (Fernández and Nieto,
2006). Moreover, the majority of previous studies examine firms from Western countries.
In this study, we examine firms’ export behavior based on a longitudinal dataset of
213,662 manufacturing firms in China from 1998 to 2005. With its economic reform and
transition to a market-based economy, China has become one of the most important export
markets in the world. Accompanied with the rapid growth of GDP, China has also achieved a
fast growth in its export trade as shown in Table 1. Worldwide exporting reached 119.8 billion
US dollars in 2006 and the exporting volume of China was 969.1 billion with a growth rate of
27% (UNCTAD, 2006).
–––––––––––––––––––––
Insert Tables 1 here
–––––––––––––––––––––
Table 2 shows that China is one of the largest trade partners for the major economies in
the world and its top three trade partners in 2006 are EU, US, and Japan. Given its significant
role in the world trade, the China context provides an excellent research context to study firms’
export behavior in developing or transition economies.
–––––––––––––––––––––
Insert Tables 2 here
–––––––––––––––––––––
4
We examine the influences of the realized strategies in terms of cost reduction and
differentiation on the export behavior of manufacturing firms in China. We use cost leadership
and differentiation strategies as important measures that explain a firm’s export behavior because
they reflect explicit use of firms’ resources to achieve competitive advantages. We measure cost
leadership and differentiation advantages as the extent of deviation of a firm’s cost structure and
technology levels from the average level of a specific industry.
Moreover, foreign firms
operating in the China market may have different strategic objectives and consequently different
export behavior. Therefore, we further compare the patterns of export behavior of indigenous
and foreign manufacturing firms.
2. Theory and Hypotheses
The resource-based view (RBV) focuses on the origins of competitive advantage and
addresses why firms in the same industry vary systematically in performance over time (Barney,
1991; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997; Wernerfelt, 1984).
A firm can gain competitive
advantage through deploying its valuable, rare, and inimitable resources (Barney, 1991). Recent
developments in this domain have differentiated resources and capabilities of firms (Makadok,
2001; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997). A resource is an observable (but not necessarily tangible)
asset that can be valued and traded, such as a brand, a patent, a parcel of land, or a license while
a capability is an un intangible organizational process and can change hands only as part of its
entire unit (Makadok, 2001). Performance differences among firms not only result from control
of idiosyncratic resources but also from capabilities and competencies that combine and
transform available resources into superior customer value (Barney, 1991; Day, 1994).
While the RBV emphasizes firms’ internal resources and competencies, the structure-
5
conduct-performance paradigm (SCP) states that firm performance is determined by
characteristics of the external environment and firms’ ability to achieve positional advantages
through their planned strategies (Porter, 1985).
Firms have dependence on the external
environment which poses constraints on firms’ strategic choices; however firms can manage the
dependence by developing competitive strategies accordingly (Cavusgil and Zou, 1994).
The
RBV and SCP approaches offer explanations of firm performance from different theoretical
perspectives. However, these two theories can be combined and synthesized if a dynamic view
is adopted to explain the process from firm resources to competitive advantages and performance
outcomes (Morgan, Kaleka, and Katsikeas, 2004).
There have been a lot of empirical studies on the determinants of export performance. At
the macro-level, researchers have investigated variables including comparative advantage,
government policies, exchange rate fluctuations, and domestic market characteristics. Microlevel research turns attention to firm level variables because firm characteristics lead to
performance differences and have substantial influences on firms export behavior. Factors
identified include export strategies, managerial perceptions and attributes, firm resources, and
firm capabilities/competencies, etc.
Firm capabilities/competencies appear to be important
factors influencing export behavior and previous studies have found a positive relationship
between firm competencies and export performance (e.g., Holzmuller and Stottinger, 1996; Ito
and Pucik, 1993; Naidu and Prasad, 1994). However, there exist problems that limit previous
empirical studies. Previous studies have mainly used small scale survey data and most of them
are cross-sectional, which cannot test the casual relationship between firm competencies and
export behavior.
In this study, we aim to use objective data to measure firms’ realized
competencies that indicate competitive advantages, and further investigate the link from
6
competitive advantages to firms’ export behavior longitudinally. Following previous literature,
we examine two indicators of firms’ export behavior, namely export propensity and intensity.
Export propensity is defined as whether or not a firm exports to foreign markets and export
intensity is defined as the level of export sales in total sales (Calof, 1994; Salomon and Shaver,
2005).
2.1 Competitive Industry Position and Export Behavior
We incorporate two distinct competitive advantages in our study: cost leadership and
differentiation. Firms can develop competitive advantages with respect to competitors in a
specific industry either through the strategies of cost leadership or differentiation (Porter, 1980,
1985).
Firms pursuing a cost leadership strategy aim to enhance performance and increase
market shares based on competitive advantages through a low-cost position relative to rivals. In
order to achieve cost leadership, firms need to outperform in activities of producing, selling, and
delivering products and services to customers and provide consumer values cheaper. Cost
leadership requires large scale product facilities, rigorous process improvements, cost reduction
through experience, cost control, and cost minimization in R&D, advertising, sales, and services.
Because of the ability to match competitors’ offerings at lower prices, firms with cost leadership
advantages can achieve above-average returns (Porter, 1980, 1985).
Previous studies have provided supportive evidence for the link between competitive
strategies and firm performance (e.g., David et al., 2002; Spanos, Zaralis, and Lioukas, 2004).
Aulakh, Kotabe, and Teegen (2000) suggest that firms from emerging economies can use costbased strategies to enhance export performance in developed countries because they possess
comparative advantages in terms of low costs of labor and raw materials. Firms with cost
7
leadership advantages can leverage their domestic competitive advantages to international
markets. Therefore, we expect that those firms (indigenous and foreign) are more likely to
become exporters and have higher export volumes. Therefore, we hypothesize,
H1: Firms with cost leadership advantage are more likely to export and have higher levels of
export intensity.
Firms pursuing differentiation strategies on the other hand emphasize building a product
or service that customers see as unique and are willing to pay a premium price (Porter, 1980,
1985). Differentiation strategies can be realized through creating strong brand equity,
continuous innovation, advanced technology, and superior customer services. Firms need to
make investments in costly activities like extensive R&D, product design and marketing
management. If firms can successfully differentiate themselves from rivals in the market place,
they can enjoy above-market prices because differentiation strategies can create high customer
loyalty.
Firms can achieve competitive advantages through differentiation strategies, which will
in turn enhance firm performance. Compared with advantages through cost leadership,
differentiation advantages are more difficult for competitors to imitate and hence more likely to
be sustained (Barney, 2002). We expect that competitive advantages through differentiation
strategies can be applied to exporting markets and affect firms’ export behavior.
H2: Firms with differentiation advantage are more likely to export and have higher levels of
export intensity.
2.2 Export Behavior of Foreign Firms
In the last two decades, China has become one of the largest and fasted-growing
destinations for foreign direct investments. The high economic growth, huge market potential,
8
and low labor cost advantages have attracted numerous foreign firms to set up manufacturing
operations in China. In our sample, we incorporate both indigenous and foreign manufacturing
firms. Multinational firms make decisions on production and output allocation differently from
domestic firms (Salomon and Shaver, 2005). Multinational firms operating in China basically
have two major strategic objectives: market seeking and resource seeking.
Market-seeking
firms usually increase commitments gradually and aim to become local players for local sales
eventually. On the contrary, some multinational firms establish sourcing facilities in China,
which act as exporting platforms for the global network. Different strategic objectives of foreign
firms have substantial effects on their export behaviors. We expect that if foreign firms focus on
sales outside China, they are more likely to pursue cost leadership advantages while marketseeking firms are more likely to pursue differentiation strategies to establish unique positions in
the domestic market.
Therefore, we consider the possible different export behavior of
indigenous and foreign manufacturing firms and hypothesize the following
H3a: Foreign firms with cost leadership advantage are more likely to export and have
higher levels of export intensity.
H3b: Foreign firms with differentiation advantage are less likely to export and have higher
levels of export intensity.
3. Data and Research Method
Our data source is the Annual Census of Chinese Industrial Firms (ACCIF), 1998-2005,
which is conducted by the National Bureau of Statistics of China. It covers all industrial stateowned enterprises and non-state-owned enterprises with at least 5 million RMB annual sales.
The data set provides detailed information on firms’ identification, assets, liabilities, and capital
structure, sales, financial performance, total shipments, and exported shipments, among others.
9
The ACCIF data set covers three major industrial sectors: (1) mining, (2) manufacturing,
(3) production and distribution of electricity, gas and water. In this paper, we focus on the
manufacturing sector only because other two sectors are neither export intensive nor major
exporting sectors in China. The data set is representative and suitable for studying export
strategy of manufacturing firms in China.
Table 3 shows the numbers of manufacturing
enterprises with valid total shipments and exported shipments information vary from 141
thousands to 243 thousands for various years. China’s total export increased dramatically from
184 billion US dollars in 1998 to 762 billion US dollars in 2005, while the sample used in the
paper consistently represents around 70% of China’s total export during the period.
–––––––––––––––––––––
Insert Tables 3 here
–––––––––––––––––––––
Dependent variables
Following the literature, we use two dependent variables (export propensity and export
intensity) to measure export behavior of firms (Zhao and Zou, 2002; Fernández and Nieto, 2006).
Export propensity equals one if a firm export a positive proportion of its output in a specific year,
zero otherwise. Export intensity equals the ratio of export to output sold by a firm in a specific
year.
Independent variables
We measure realized strategies of cost leadership strategy ( CL ) and differentiation
strategy ( DF ). We proxy a firm i ' s competitive strategies as the divergent of its cost structure
and differentiation levels from the typical levels of the industry j at year t . In constructing the
industry-year median, we exclude the firm itself. We divide this deviation by the range of CL
and DF in each industry-year, thus bound these proxies by minus one and one. MacKay and
10
Phillips (2005) used a similar proxy to measure firms’ relative capital-labor ratio in an industry.
The measures of cost leadership and differentiation can be expressed as follows, respectively:
⎧
⎪
CLi ,t = − ⎨
⎪⎩ range
DFi ,t =
⎫
⎪
⎬ ∈ [ −1,1] ,
− median− i , j ,t ( CL ) ∀i ∈ j, t ⎪
⎭
(CL)i , j ,t − median− i , j ,t ( CL )
(((CL)
i , j ,t
)
)
( DF )i , j ,t − median−i , j ,t ( DF )
∈ [ −1,1]
range ( ( ( DF )i , j ,t − median− i , j ,t ( DF ) ) ∀i ∈ j, t )
For competitive advantages of cost leadership, we use two indicators: production costs to
total revenue (PCR) and capital intensity measured by fixed assets to employee ratio (FAE). The
main dimension of cost leadership strategy is efficiency, which can be further divided into cost
efficiency and asset parsimony. Following previous literature (Nair and Filer, 2003; Berman et
al., 1999), we use PCR and FAE to measure the extent to which firms follow an efficiency
strategy in deploying the minimum levels of costs and assets. The lower the levels of these two
variables are, the lower degrees will be inputs per unit.
For competitive advantages of differentiation, we have two indicators of new products to
total products ratio (NPP) and intangible assets to total fixed assets ratio (IAA). We approximate
differentiation strategies to measure firms’ willingness to spend resources on innovation and
marketing efforts to differentiate from competitors (David et al., 2002).
To measure competition strategies of firms, we use average values of those variables in
previous three years for firms as proxies. We first construct samples of firms that appeared in
data during 2001-2005 and previous three years of these specific years. In the construction of
the samples, we exclude observations with missing or obviously unreasonable values which are
essential to construct variables for analyses (for example, some firms report more export
11
shipment than total shipment). Numbers of firm for years are 41,893 in 2001; 42,964 in 2002,
42,710 in 2003; 40,275 in 2004; and 45,780 in 2005. We report descriptive statistics of variables
and the correlation matrix in Table 4.
–––––––––––––––––––––
Insert Tables 4 here
–––––––––––––––––––––
4. Empirical Results
We estimate the export propensity behavior with a logistic model and export intensity
with a Tobit model. We add control variables in the analysis, including industry growth rate,
firm size, and firm age. We also incorporate industry and year fixed effects in the estimation for
robustness.
Table 5 reports the effects of competitive industry position of firms’ export propensity
and intensity. The results suggest that both production cost (PCR) and capital intensity (FAE)
have negative effects on export propensity and intensity (p<.001). Lower values of PCR and
FAE indicate firms’ competitive advantages in cost leadership. That is, firms with realized
advantages of cost leadership are more likely to export and have high levels of export intensity.
Hence, H1 is supported.
NPP and IAA are significantly related to export propensity and
intensity (p<.001) , which shows that firms with advantages of differentiation are more likely to
be involved in export markets and have high export intensity, supporting H2.
–––––––––––––––––––––
Insert Tables 5 here
–––––––––––––––––––––
Table 6 reports both export propensity and export intensity models of the interaction
effects. The results suggest that the interaction item between PCR and the dummy variable of
12
foreign firms has a significantly negative effect on export intensity but not on export propensity.
It appears that foreign firms with advantages of cost leadership have higher export intensity,
which partially supports H3a. The interaction item between new products to total products (NPP)
and foreign firms has a negative and statistically significant effect on export propensity and
intensity (p<.001), indicating that foreign firms with advantages of differentiation are less likely
to export and have lower levels of export intensity. Therefore, H3b is supported.
–––––––––––––––––––––
Insert Tables 6 here
–––––––––––––––––––––
5. Discussion and Concluding Remarks
In this study, we investigate the impacts of firms’ competitive position on export
behaviors indicated by export propensity and intensity. Based on the resource-based view (RBV)
and the structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigm of firm behavior, we theorize that firms’
capability and competencies enable firms achieve competitive advantages within an industry,
which consequently have substantial effects on firms’ export behavior. The results provide
strong support for the effects of realized competitive advantages of cost leadership or
differentiation on firms’ export behavior using a longitudinal data set manufacturing firms in
China from 1998 to 2005. Indigenous and foreign manufacturing firms exhibit different patterns
of export behavior. That is, foreign firms with differentiation advantages focus on local market
expansion instead of seeking opportunity in export markets.
The RBV and the SCP paradigm dominate the conceptual landscape of the determinants
of firm performance. Competitive advantages realized in the domestic market can help firms
compete in international markets (Porter, 1990). In the literature, there exist a lot of empirical
studies examining the effects of firm capability/competencies on export behavior (e.g.,
13
Holzmuller and Stottinger, 1996; Ito and Pucik, 1993; Naidu and Prasad, 1994). However, most
of previous studies employ survey data, which exhibit perception biases for the measures of
competitive advantages. Moreover, cross-sectional data hinders testing the relationship between
firm competitive advantages and export behavior over time.
In this study, we rely on a
longitudinal data set of manufacturing firms in China to capture firms’ realized competitive
advantages using objective measures and investigate the impacts of realized strategies on firms’
export behavior over time. Competitive advantages through cost leadership or differentiation
enable firms to compete in the export market and achieve high levels of export intensity. The
results further substantiate the salient roles of firm competitive advantages in explaining firm
behavior.
Our results indicate different patterns of export behavior between indigenous and foreign
manufacturing firms. China provides an appropriate setting to examine competitive advantages
and export behavior because it is during a dramatic transformation process with a stiff
competition.
As the largest transition economy, China has attracted a lot foreign direct
investments and foreign invested firms may have different strategic objectives and consequently
exhibit different export behavior. The large market size of China allows companies in the same
industry pursuing various competition strategies-cost leadership and differentiation. This study
shows that foreign ventures with differentiation advantages focus on local market expansion
instead of seeking opportunity in exporting markets.
Salomon and Shaver (2005) show that
export and domestic sales are substitute for each other. Our study further suggests export
behavior of foreign invested firms depends on their strategic objectives. Therefore, attention
should be given to the differences between domestic and foreign invested ventures when
conducting firm level export research.
14
There are several limitations of this study, which also representing further research
directions in this domain. First, we examine the effects of competitive advantages on firms’
export behavior through measuring firms’ realized competitive advantages through cost
leadership and differentiation strategies. Because of the limitation of secondary data, we cannot
investigate the dynamic process from resources to capabilities and competitive advantages
directly. Second, there has been policy changes in China related to the export behavior as China
became a member of the World Trade Organization. The changes in policies including tariff
reduction and its domestic market opening should have some impacts on the export behavior on
both domestic and foreign firms. Finally, external environment variables also have significant
effects of firms’ export behavior. It is possible that firms with different competitive advantages
react to the influences of external environment in different ways. Therefore, it will be worthwhile
to investigate the interplay and interrelationship between environmental variables and firm
capabilities/competitive advantages.
15
Table 1
GDP and Export Volume of China
GDP
Exports
2001
1,196
266.1
2002
1,300
325.6
2003
1,414
438.2
2004
1,932
593.3
2005
2,229
762.0
2006
2,677
969.1
Unit: US$ billon
Source: China Statistical Yearbook, various years.
16
Table 2
China’s Top Trade Partners in 2006
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Country
EU
US
Japan
HK
ASEAN
S. Korea
Taiwan
Russia
Australia
India
Total trade
272
263
207
166
161
134
108
33
33
25
% Total Trade
15.5
14.9
11.8
9.4
9.1
7.6
6.1
1.9
1.9
1.4
% GDP
10.2
9.8
7.7
6.2
6.0
5.0
4.0
1.2
1.2
0.9
Unit: US$ billon
Source: http://zhs.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/Nocategory/200702/20070204344141.html and
http://zhs.mofcom.gov.cn/tongji.shtml.
17
Table 3
Representativeness of the sample for China’s total export
1998
Number of firm in the crosssectional sample
Export in the sample
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
144,161 140,903 142,549 152,345 162,769 178,467 156,017 243,332
126.5
135.1
171.2
191.7
237.4
320.0
395.9
581.6
China’s total export
183.7
194.9
249.2
266.1
325.6
438.2
593.3
762.0
Percentage of China’s total export
69%
69%
69%
72%
73%
73%
67%
76%
Unit: US$ billon
Note: China’s total exports come from China Statistics Yearbooks for various years.
18
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
1
1. Production costs ratio
2. Capital intensity
3. New product ratio
4. Intangible assets ratio
5. Foreign firms
6. Industry growth rate
7. Firm size
8. Firm age
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.00
.125***
1.00
***
.094***
***
***
.094
.102
***
.038
***
.009
***
-.039
***
.065
.162
***
.219
**
.005
***
.331
- .041
***
1.00
.073***
- .031
***
***
.033
***
.198
***
.081
1.00
.012***
***
- .013
.045
***
.022
***
1.00
.043***
.153
***
***
- .157
1.00
.061***
***
.009
1.00
.051***
1.00
Mean
.043
.043
.038
.031
.253
.145
1.206
2.401
S.D.
.153
.115
.130
.081
.435
.077
4.326
.629
***
p<.001, **p<.01, * p<.05, N=203,853
19
Table 5
Effects of Industry Position on Export Propensity and Intensity
Independent Variables
Intercept
Production costs ratio
Capital intensity
New product ratio
Intangible assets ratio
Foreign firms
Export Propensity
Export Intensity
-8.51***
(.77)
-.61***
(.04)
-1.01***
(.05)
1.23***
(.04)
1.41***
(.07)
1.57***
(.02)
-1.22***
(.04)
-.35***
(.01)
- .37***
(.01)
.19***
(.01)
.30***
(.02)
.47***
(.00)
-.54***
(.14)
.62***
(.01)
.18***
(.01)
-.15***
(.03)
.11***
(.00)
.02***
(.00)
.35
---
86,922.28
-109,730.46
86%
---
203,853
203,853
Control Variables
Industry growth rate
Firm size
Firm age
R square
Log Likelihood
Concordant
Number of Observations
***
p<.001, **p<.01, * p<.05
20
Table 6
Model Analyzing Interaction Effects of Foreign Firms
with Production Cost and New Products
Independent Variables
Export Propensity
Export Intensity
-8.49***
(.77)
-.60***
(.04)
-.96***
(.06)
1.22***
(.04)
1.41***
(.07)
1.57***
(.02)
-8.48***
(.77)
-.62***
(.04)
-1.02***
(.06)
1.15***
(.04)
1.40***
(.07)
1.56***
(.02)
-1.22***
(.04)
-.34***
(.01)
-.38***
(.02)
.19***
(.01)
.29***
(.02)
.46***
(.00)
-1.20***
(.04)
-.35***
(.01)
-.37***
(.01)
.20***
(.01)
.29***
(.02)
.47***
(.00)
-.16
(.08)
---
-.06***
(.77)
---
Capital intensity ×
Foreign firms
-.19
(.10)
---
.01
(.03)
---
New product ratio ×
Foreign firms
---
-1.22***
(.10)
---
-.39***
(.02)
Intangible assets ratio ×
Foreign firms
---
.11
(.17)
---
-.00
(.04)
-.54***
(.14)
.62***
(. 01)
.18***
(.01)
-.54***
(.14)
.62***
(.01)
.18***
(.01)
-.15***
(.03)
.11***
(.00)
.02***
(.00)
-.15***
(.03)
.11***
(.00)
.02***
(.00)
.35
.35
---
---
86,930.09
87,056.94
-109,725.90
-109,588.32
86%
86%
---
---
203,853
203,853
203,853
203,853
Intercept
Production costs ratio
Capital intensity
New product ratio
Intangible assets ratio
Foreign firms
Production costs ratio ×
Foreign firms
Control Variables
Industry growth rate
Firm size
Firm age
R square
Log Likelihood
Concordant
Number of Observations
***
p<.001, **p<.01, * p<.05
21
References
Aulakh, P. S., Kotabe, M. and Teegen, H. (2000) “Export Strategies and Performance of Firms
from Emerging Economies: Evidence from Brazil, Chile, and Mexico,” Academy of Management
Journal, 43(3):342-361.
Barney, J. (1991) “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,” Journal of
Management, 17(1):99-121.
Barney, J. 2002. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S. and Jones, T. M. (1999) “Does stakeholder orientation
matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial
performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 42(5):488-506.
Calof, J. (1994) “The relationship between firm size and export behavior revisited”, Journal of
International Business Studies, 25(2):367-387.
Cavusgil, S. T. and Zou, S. (1994) “Marketing strategy-performance relationship: An
investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures,” Journal of Marketing, 58(1):1-21.
David, J. S., Hwang, Y., Pei, B. K. W. and Reneau, J. H. (2002) “The performance effects of
congruence between product competitive strategies and purchasing management design,”
Management Science, 48(7):866-885.
Day, G. S. (1994) “The capabilities of market-driven organizations,” Journal of Marketing,
58(4):37-52.
Fernández, Z. and Nieto, M. J. (2006) “Impact of ownership on the international involvement of
SMEs,” Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3):340-351.
Holzmuller, H. H. and Stottinger, B. (1996) “Structural modeling of success factors in exporting:
Cross-validation and further development of an export performance model”, Journal of
International Marketing, 4(2):29-56.
Ito, K. (1997) “Domestic competitive position and export strategy of Japanese manufacturing
firms: 1971-1985,” Management Science, 43(5):610-622.
Ito, K. and Pucik, V. (1993) “R&D spending, domestic compensation, and export performance of
Japanese manufacturing firms”, Strategic Management Journal, 14(1):61-75.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. (1977) “The internationalization process of the firm: A model of
knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments,” Journal of International
Business Studies, 8(1): 23-32.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J. E. (1990) “The mechanism of internationalization,” International
Marketing Review, 7(4):11-25.
22
MacKay, P. and G. M. Phillips (2005) “How Does Industry Affect Firm Financial Structure?”
Review of Financial Studies, 18(4): 1433-1466.
Makadok, R. (2001) “Towards a synthesis of resource-based and dynamic capability views of
rent creation,” Strategic Management Journal, 22(5):387-402.
Morgan, N. A., Kaleka, A. and Katsikeas, C. S. (2004) “Antecedents of export venture
performance: A theoretical model and empirical assessment,” Journal of Marketing, 68(1):90108.
Naidu, G. M. and Prasad, V. K. (1994) “Predictions of export strategy and performance of small
and medium-sized firms”, Journal of Business Research, 31(1/2):107-115.
Nair, A. and Filter, L. (2003) “Contegration of firm strategies within groups: A long-run analysis
of firm behavior in the Japanese steel industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 24:145-159.
Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Sakakibara, M. and Porter, M. E. (2001) “Competing at home to win abroad: Evidence from
Japanese industry,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(2):310-322.
Salomon, R. and Shaver, J. M. (2005) “Export and domestic sales: their interrelationship and
determinants,” Strategic Management Journal, 26(9):855-871.
Spanos, Y. E., Zaralis, G. and Lioukas, S. (2004) “Strategy and industry effects on profitability:
evidence from Greece,” Strategic Management Journal, 25(2):139-165.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,”
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7):509-524.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984) “A resource-based view of the firm,” Strategic Management Journal,
5(2):171-182.
Handbook of Statistics of 2006. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), United Nations: New York
Zhao, H. and Zou, S. (2002) “The impact of industry concentration and firm location on export
propensity and intensity: An empirical analysis of Chinese manufacturing firms,” Journal of
International Marketing, 10(1):52-71.
23